1. #1
    Do you know if the ruler bug which is stated in Wazoos manual torp guide is still in 1.4b?

    "Setting the correct range requires a bit of estimating because when a number
    on the ruler changes, let€s say from 1.6km as you extend the ruler to 1.7km,
    you must subtract 50 meters. Thus 1.7km is NOT 1700m when it changes
    from 1.6km, but is actually 1650m. An annoying little issue that I hope is
    fixed in a future patch"

    This one
    Share this post

  2. #2
    Do you know if the ruler bug which is stated in Wazoos manual torp guide is still in 1.4b?

    "Setting the correct range requires a bit of estimating because when a number
    on the ruler changes, let€s say from 1.6km as you extend the ruler to 1.7km,
    you must subtract 50 meters. Thus 1.7km is NOT 1700m when it changes
    from 1.6km, but is actually 1650m. An annoying little issue that I hope is
    fixed in a future patch"

    This one
    Share this post

  3. #3
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alarmer:
    Do you know if the ruler bug which is stated in Wazoos manual torp guide is still in 1.4b?

    "Setting the correct range requires a bit of estimating because when a number
    on the ruler changes, let€s say from 1.6km as you extend the ruler to 1.7km,
    you must subtract 50 meters. Thus 1.7km is NOT 1700m when it changes
    from 1.6km, but is actually 1650m. An annoying little issue that I hope is
    fixed in a future patch"

    This one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why would this be a "bug" rather than an apropriate implementation of a rounding methodology - i.e., it's just rounding to the nearest .1km (between 1.650 to 1.749 distances are rounded to 1.7) - this makes more sense than having it switch to 1.7 right at 1.7, so that 1.699 would still read as 1.6

    Seems like they got this one right, to me
    Share this post

  4. #4
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by panthercules:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alarmer:
    Do you know if the ruler bug which is stated in Wazoos manual torp guide is still in 1.4b?

    "Setting the correct range requires a bit of estimating because when a number
    on the ruler changes, let€s say from 1.6km as you extend the ruler to 1.7km,
    you must subtract 50 meters. Thus 1.7km is NOT 1700m when it changes
    from 1.6km, but is actually 1650m. An annoying little issue that I hope is
    fixed in a future patch"

    This one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Why would this be a "bug" rather than an apropriate implementation of a rounding methodology - i.e., it's just rounding to the nearest .1km (between 1.650 to 1.749 distances are rounded to 1.7) - this makes more sense than having it switch to 1.7 right at 1.7, so that 1.699 would still read as 1.6

    Seems like they got this one right, to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I understood what Wazoo was sayin... but honestly, I'm never firing beyond 1500m with a ballistic torp. I too was concerned with that at first, but later realized the half knot made little difference to me...

    I doubt they changed it, but it doesn't really effect me that much anyway. If I'm off a half-knot on the speed it's the least of my worries. If I were you, I'd just proceed as if Wazoo hadn't mentioned it.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    bo_bo's Avatar Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    25
    panthercules, he talking about a "ruler" a measuring device which should be acurate. The distance to a target manualy is tricky enough through the periscope so why would I want/need more error injection? We need a reliable tool not an "apropriate implementation of a rounding methodology".

    I'm sure even back then the rulers that they used to measure distance with on paper were just as reliable as they are today.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Well the catch is this.

    Using manual solutions I usually have to do the process of getting speed, range and bearing couple or sometimes even three times to get close enought solution. Mainly because I cant get accurate readings with ruler tool.

    Example. I have spotted ship and measure the range as 2432m. At this point I just draw with ruler about 2.5km and be happy with that. But it could be more accurate
    Share this post

  7. #7
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bo_bo:
    panthercules, he talking about a "ruler" a measuring device which should be acurate. The distance to a target manualy is tricky enough through the periscope so why would I want/need more error injection? We need a reliable tool not an "apropriate implementation of a rounding methodology".

    I'm sure even back then the rulers that they used to measure distance with on paper were just as reliable as they are today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, it seems to me it's more of a question of the scale (degree of accuracy) depicted on the particular ruler than its "reliability". I haven't used this particular ruler tool, but I assumed from the wording of the original post that the smallest measurement depicted on the ruler was .1km (it said "from 1.6km as you extend the ruler to 1.7km, you must subtract 50 meters. Thus 1.7km is NOT 1700m when it changes
    from 1.6km..." - from this I concluded that the ruler showed only 1.6, 1.7, etc. and not any specific distances in between 1.6 and 1.7).

    I thought the poster was referring to a ruler tool that worked like the game's stock ruler - i.e., as you stretched it out longer the number changed from 1.6 to 1.7 as it reached an actual distance of 1.650 - thus my comment about rounding. However, if this particular ruler tool in question is a static depiction of a physical ruler overlaid on the chart (rather than a moving/extending line), with fixed markings that read both 1.6 and 1.7, then I agree that it is a bit odd/wrong if that fixed marking reading 1.7 doesn't actually correspond to 1.7 and corresponds to 1.650 instead.

    In any event, given the difficulty/unlikelihood of getting a range estimate from the periscope stadimeter that is really accurate within 50m, it's probably illusory to be worrying about the ruler's accuracy being any "tighter" than 50m, seems to me.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Granted it gives certain thrill to the game when its never 100% certain that you hit.

    Quess Iam longing for that ultimate precision that Germans are famous for. Or something like that
    Share this post